J. Ba
asic. Appl. Sci. Rees., 4(6)101-109, 20014
© 2014, TextRo
oad Publication
ISSN 22090-4304
Journal of B
Basic and Applied
Scientiffic Research
www.teextroad.com
A Study of Cognate Relationship between Urd
du and En
nglish and its Impacct on
the Lea
arning of English
E
ass a Second
d Languagge in Pakisstan
Mr. Moham
mmad Asif1, Mr. Zahoor Hussain2, M
Ms. Ayesha Paarveen3, Mr. Saeed4
Tutor, Departm
ment of Englissh, Virtual Univversity, Lahoree Campus
In
ncharge Department of Engliish, BZU Bahaadur Sub Camppus, Layyah
3
Assisttant Professor, Department off English Virtuual University, Lahore, Camppus
4
O- Leevel Faculty, Bloomfield Halll School, Multaan
Recceived: February 220, 2014
Accepted: May 116, 2014
ABSTRACT
This paperr is a study off the cognate relationship
r
beetween Urdu aand English. IIt examines thhe effects of coognate
relationship between Urd
du and English
h in the learnin
ng of English as a second laanguage. It allso attempts too draw
distinction between the effects of cog
gnates and no
on cognates. As English laanguage is an inseparable ppart of
Pakistani linguistic
l
reperrtoire, its learn
ning or acquisittion as a seconnd language iss a need of tim
me. Pakistani E
English
teachers an
nd learners facce lots of problems regarding
g the teaching and the learniing of Englishh which demannds the
exposure of
o new metho
odologies of teeaching and leearning of Engglish. Qualitattive approach is used to finnd out
cognates of
o Urdu and English
E
through
h the content analysis of soome reference books. Resuults of the studdy are
according to the expectattions that the relationship
r
between Urdu annd English exists and this rellationship affeccts the
quality of learning
l
of Eng
glish as second
d language. Th
he study also suuggests future research aboutt the effectivenness of
loanwords in the learning
g of English. The
T results indicate that loanw
words are easieer to learn thann cognate words.
RD: COGNAT
TE, URDU, IM
MPACT, LEARN
RNING, LANG
GUAGE, PAKISTAN
KEYWOR
INTR
RODUCTION
N
Like human beingss languages haave relationshiip with one annother and thiis relationship can be genettically,
historically
y and politicallly. Cognate rellationship is lik
ke blood relatioonship among human beingss, in which langguages
are relativees to one anoth
her via common
n mother langu
uage or commoon root. For exxample, the woord “seek” in E
English
and the wo
ord “seekhna” in
i Urdu are cog
gnate relatives via common rroot or mother language the P
Proto-Indo-Eurropean
language th
hat is Sanskrit..
It is admitted
a
that Pakistan
P
has hiistorical and political
p
relatio nship with Ennglish languagee since the arriival of
East India Company. Fu
urthermore, Paakistan from its creation receeived English as a heritage ffrom British Empire.
So, English
h has been the language of politics, educatiion, business, aadministration,, judiciary, arm
my and the elitee class
of Pakistan
n for decades. It is, now, a compulsory subject in all the educationaal institutions of Pakistan evven in
madaaras. Trainers, teacchers and stak
keholders are striving to maake easy learnning of Englissh through diffferent
methodolo
ogies. Internattionally, experrts have conducted researrches regardinng cognate reelationship beetween
languages. The research
hes like French
h-English cogn
nate relationshhip (Devonish,, 2001, and M
Midgley, et al, 2011),
Spanish-En
nglish cognatee relationship (August, Carllo, Dressler, & Snow, 20055, Beltran, 20006, Colorado, 2007,
Kohnert, 2004,
2
Lublinerr&Hiebert 201
11, Nagy, et al
a 1993), Germ
rman-English ccognate relatioonship (Agarw
wal, &
Adams, 20
007, University
y of South Flo
orida, 1995) Tu
urkish-English cognate relatiionship (Uzun,, &Salđhoglu, 2009)
and Arabicc-Hebrew cog
gnate relationsh
hip (Ibrahim, 2006) providee evidences thhat this relatioonship have poositive
effects in second
s
languag
ge learning.
So, th
his study is also a step towaard finding thee cognate relattionship betweeen Urdu and English whichh have
interactive to each other for
f decades. Firstly,
F
it has to
o be searched w
whether this rellationship exissts between Urddu and
English. If it exists, whaat are the effects of this relatiionship in learnning of Englishh as a second llanguage in Paakistan
and to whaat extent the co
ognate relationsship is differen
nt from non-coggnate relationsship.
Most societies in th
he world are either
e
bilinguaal or multilinguual who learn or acquire seccond languagee apart
from moth
her tongue. Fo
or languages reepresent culturres, bilingualissm abets in em
merging a multticultural society and
globalization. It also accelerates leearning in gen
neral educatioon. It is alsoo opposed byy those who prefer
monolingu
ualism “In the United
U
States, monolingualissm traditionallyy has been thee norm. Bilinguualism was reggarded
as a sociall stigma and liability” (Grossjean, 1982 & McLaughlin, 1984 cited inn Clark, 2000, p. 183). How
wever,
*Correspon
nding Author: Mr.
M Mohammad
d Asif, Tutor, Department of Engglish, Virtual Unniversity, Lahoree Campus
101
Asif et al., 2014 Pakistan is a multilingual society with inheritance of 69 local languages (Rahman, 2006) apart from English
language which is still called a “foreign language” but it has dominated politically over all other local languages.
Although English has been adopted as a compromised candidate (Khalique, 2007) since the creation of Pakistan
with the longing that it would be replaced by Urdu when time would come but this “time” is still being awaited for
and English is still in currency with its main and might.
Although English has been taught and studied since the creation of Pakistan and it has been an official
language of this country (Mansoor, 2009 &Rahman, 2010) yet the pedagogical skills of English teachers and the
four language skills of English learners are not satisfactory. Prescriptive grammar is in use instead of descriptive
grammar but the competence in language skills is still far from the desired targets. The rules are crammed and
structures are parroted for the sake of getting good marks in exams. Listening and speaking are the foremost
components of language but they are ignored while listening and speaking are (Spooner & Woodcock, 2010)
fundamentals to success in reading and writing because (Winsor, 2009) reading and writing is complex process
which is based on listening and speaking skills.
In this study, the researcher is also concerned with the relationship between different languages especially with
the cognate relationship between Urdu and English. So, this study has focused on the cognate relationship exists
between Urdu and English language.
Review of Literature
Second language acquisition refers to the language that is acquired in addition to an individual’s mother
tongue. It relates with two disciplines applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Second language acquisition is
considered (Schütz, 2011) the process of natural assimilation, involving intuition and subconscious learning by the
interaction with people and environment in natural context. Actually, SLL is an action of non-native speaker where
he does not learn a language as a primary language. It is a (Gass, 2009) learning of a language beyond the native
language (Klein, 2003) in many ways, at any age, for many purpose and at different levels (Ellis, 2008) inside or
outside classroom.
In the beginning of the development of SLL in the nineteenth century, the emphasis was on the main features
of the traditional methods of language learning where language was taught and learnt by reading and writing skills.
The banishment of the first language from classroom is also supported theoretically in our country. However,
practically (Halai, 2007) the first language is used, in spite of theoretical antagonism against the first language.
Actually, this antipathy based upon the two arguments (Cook, 2011) that children do not have the second language
available when they are learning their mother tongue and that both the first and second languages should be separate
in the learners minds rather than linking them. This point of view is not supported by some researchers. For
example, Brisbois (1995) says that linkage between the first and the second language is helpful in learning the
second language. Cook (2010) puts that the first language is necessarily which remains in the minds of learner and
it is accepted that the first language should forcibly be prevented in classroom but he says:
The avoidance of explicit grammar is also a main feature of SLL. The revolution that grammar should be
taught implicitly provides conditions for learner in which they are encouraged to learn grammar naturally and
unconsciously. In this case, linguists debate this notion as Andrews (2007) indicates that the explicit demonstration
is better than the implicit and (Ellis, 2006) the explicit grammar helps in understanding the implicit grammar. So,
the both methods should be used because they are effective for simple and complex rules. Ellis, (2006) supports this
idea as under:
Teaching explicit knowledge can be incorporated into both a focus-on-forms and a focus-on-form approach. In
the case of a focus-on-forms approach, a differentiated approach involving sometimes deductive and sometimes
inductive instruction may work best (p.102).
But, whenever a language is mentioned whether it is L1 or L2, it is learnt through lexis or vocabulary. No
doubt, (Laufer, 2003) other factors like predicting the context of a language or text, guessing the unknown words in
context, making inferences, recognizing the type of text and text structure, and grasping the main idea of a
paragraph play an important role to comprehend a language. It is believed that language learning is based upon lexis
and vocabulary learning. However, the lexical approach is different from the vocabulary learning approach; in
which individual words are considered with fixed meaning while in lexical approach (Moudraia, 2001) the emphasis
is on mental lexicon instead of single words. Here, language is considered as meaningful chunks and (Wu, 1996)
collocations, when they are combined, they produce continuous coherent text. Thus, the grammar based approaches
are replaced by lexical approaches. Zimmerman (2003) indicates the historical developments of vocabulary learning
in SLL from the Grammar Translation Method to the Direct Method, from the Reading Method or the Situational
Language Teaching to the Audio Lingual Method and from the Communicative Language Teaching to the Natural
Approach leading to Lexical Pedagogy. And now lexical learning (Curado Fuentes, 2007, Huang, 2007 &Niyogi,
2005) has been incorporated into a computational programs which not only have the evidence (Curado, 2007) of
102
J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 4(6)101-109, 2014
improving lexical knowledge but also make learners active participants of a lexical learning program. There are
some problems regarding lexical learning.
Like human beings languages also have families and relatives. They live and die. They give birth to their
children and have forefathers and ancestors. There are some famous relationships like Semitic and Indo-European.
The relationship between the words of languages in meaning and form is cognate relationship. For example the
word “cow” in English “gai” in Urdu are cognate to each other because are they are derived from Sanskrit (Pickett,
2008) word “gwou”.
According to Richards and Schmidt (2010):
A word in one language is similar in form and meaning to a word in another language because both languages
are related. For example English brother and German Bruder (p.90).
However, there is also relationship which is not like sharing blood but it is like adopted relatives which have
not same ancestors and motherhood but they are adopted as relatives. This kind of relationship between languages is
borrowing. The borrowed words from other languages are used like as their own words. Richard and Schmidt
(2010) observe in this way:
Sometimes words in two languages are similar in form and meaning but are borrowings and not cognate forms.
For example, kampuni in the African language Swahili is a borrowing from English company (p. 90).
Pakistan is linguistically a multi ethnic country (Rahman, 2010) with 69 languages of which Pashto, Kashmiri,
Sindhi, Balochi, Punjabi, Hindco and Siraiki are main languages. Punjabi speakers are (Sudhir k. Singh, 2001)
54.4%, Pashto 20%, Sindhi 14%, Sarieki 7.9%, Urdu 9.7%, Baluchi 3.8%, Hindco 3.1%, Brahi 1.5% and others
3.6%. Urdu and English are official languages.
The notion stated above is supported by Rahman (2006) that Urdu was not the mother tongue of the majority
but it dominated over all other languages of Pakistan due to its legal protection as a national language by the
constitution of 1973. However, now, it is used across the county with numerous political issues. English was the
colonial heritage in the all government systems of Pakistan. But struggles to oust English started in the early days
after the creation of Pakistan. So, (Mansoor, 1993) the promotion of Urdu was the foremost preference of all the
governments to get national unity through syllabus and curriculum and through Urdu as a medium of instruction. In
the National Education Policy of 1978-79, the policy about promotion of Urdu was once in bloom and all the private
English medium schools were forced to adopt Urdu as a medium of instruction. In spite of all these endeavors
English was not replaced by Urdu because of its poverty to fulfill the national needs. In 1986, English was allowed
as a medium of instruction for science and mathematics. However, Urdu is still wrestling with English for prestige
and supremacy with its dominance over all other local and regional languages of Pakistan. As part of some heritage
from the British Empire, English has been dominating a high status in all domains of power in Pakistani society
since the establishment of Pakistan in 1947. It is being used in (Mansoor, 2005) civil administration, bureaucracy,
country’s legal system, courts, defense forces, media and education. As stated above, the struggle to replace English
with Urdu have been performed by all the governments of Pakistan but English could not only maintain its status in
all fields of Pakistan but it also superseded its antagonists in every crack and cranny of society.
As cited in the literature above this relationship between Urdu and English started to develop when British
arrived here as a trader or ruler. Khalique (2007) notes a very interesting discussion regarding language policy in
Pakistan. He quotes the statement of Muhammad Ali Jinnah about Urdu “state language of Pakistan” that does not
mean national language. If Jinnah would have made the other languages of Pakistan as national language and Urdu
as a state language, the issue would have been solved over there. However, Urdu became clearly the national
language and English as an official language sometimes “stated in clear terms and sometimes only practiced not
stated (p.101)”. It seems that English was promoted as a compromised candidate:
It remains a compromise candidate, as it were, for the multilingual intelligentsia in India and is promoted as
such in today’s Pakistan. However, we shall see how true it is in the latter’s case (Khalique, 2007, p. 101).
Ross (2010) asserts the relationship (see Figure 1) between languages on the systematic theory when Sir
William Jones, "Oriental Jones," in 1986 presented that Latin, Greek, classical languages of Europe, Sanskrit and
classical languages of India had descended from the common source. He observes that this relationship had already
been presented by in 1768 by Gaston Cœurdoux. Sanskrit grammar has lot of similarities with Greek and Latin
while the Semitic languages like Arabica, Hebrew and Turkish have interposed between Europe and India.
Thus, "father" in English compares to "Vater" in German, "pater" in Latin, "patêr" in Greek, "pitr." in Sanskrit,
"pedar" in Persian, etc. On the other hand, "father" in Arabic is "ab," which hardly seems like any of the others.
METHODOLOGY
The researchers have done the content analysis for the current study to know the impact of cognates and their
impact on learning. From ten famous dictionaries or reference books four dictionaries the American Heritage
103
Asif et al., 2014 Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, Oxford English Dictionary Mayrryam Webster's Third New
International Dictionary, Unabridged Merriam-Webster and Ferozlughat Urdu Dictionary were selected to find out
the cognates of Urdu and English. These reference books of English and Urdu were studied by the researcher under
the qualitative approach.
The researchers had to rely upon the content analysis of some etymological references books like the American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, Oxford English Dictionary Mayrryam Webster's Third
New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster and Ferozlughat Urdu Dictionary.
Content analysis refers to (Kothari, 2004) the analysis of the content documentary materials; magazines,
dictionaries, books and newspapers. It also includes the analysis of verbal or written and printer materials. To find
out the cognates, content analysis was performed on the basis of contents of these books. The reference books were
used as secondary sources of information. Because the primary sources are difficult to find, so the dependence upon
secondary sources is frequent in this kind of approach. This scenario makes qualitative research under attack. There
is external and internal criticism about this approach to determine whether the document is authentic, accurate or
original, is characterized as external criticism. Apart from external criticism whether document is original, accurate
or related to the actual writer or editor is not the concern of researcher.
ANALYSIS
It has been discussed in the methodological section that this research is based upon post
positivism/naturalistic/interpretive/hermeneutic (Cohen, et al, 2007 and Guba&Yvonna, 1998) due to the nature of
inquiry which includes two types of research questions. The research question posed in this research is related the
post positivism paradigm in which qualitative approach is used to collect the data:
• Does cognate relationship exist between Urdu and English?
In this question the assumption is made whether there is cognate relationship between Urdu and English
languages. The collected cognates are as under:
4.1.1. Words from Indo-European roots via Sanskrit
‫ﺑﻨﮕﻠہ‬
Bunglow .1
‫ﮐﺎٹ‬Cot .2
‫ﮔﺮﻭ‬
‫ِﺟﻤﺨﺎﻧہ‬
Gymkhana .4
‫ﺟﻨﮕﻞ‬
Jungle .5
‫ﻟﻮٹ‬
Loot .6
‫ ﭘﺎﺋﻴﺠﺎﻣہ‬Pyjama .7
‫ ﺳﻨﺘﺮی‬Centry .8
‫ﺷﻴﻤﭙﻮ‬
Shampoo .9
‫ﺍﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎ‬
Boil .10
‫ﭘﺎﺑﻨﺪ‬
Bound .11
‫ﺍﺩﻫﺮ‬
There .12
‫ﺍﺩﻫﺮ‬
Hither .13
‫ ﻳﮩﺎں‬Here .14
‫ﻧﺎﻡ‬
Name .15
‫ﻓﺴﺎﻧہ‬Fiction .16
‫ﺍَﻥ‬
Un .17
‫ﮐﺎٹ‬
Cut .18
‫ﮐﻮٹ‬
Coat .19
‫ﮔﺎﺋﮯ‬
Cow .20
‫ﮔﺮﻭﻩ‬
Group .21
‫ﻟَﻮ‬
Love .22
‫ﻧﺎ ﻧہ‬،No .23
‫ﺩﻥ‬
Day .24
‫ڈﺑﻞ‬.Dual. 25
‫ڈﺍٹ‬
Dot .26
‫ﺭﻭ‬
Row .27
‫ﺳﺘﺎﺭﻩ‬
Star .28
‫ﺳﻴﻞ‬
Cell .29
Guru .3
104
J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 4(6)101-109, 2014
‫ ِﺳﻴﻒ‬Safe .30
‫ﻭﺍﺩی‬Valley .31
4.1.2. Words from Semitic roots via Arabic
‫ﺷﮑﺮ‬،‫ﺳ ﱠﮑﺮ‬
Sugar .32
‫ﺳﺎﺵ‬
Sash .33
‫ﻋﻔﺮﻳﺖ‬Afreet .34
‫ ﻣﻮﻧﺴﻮﻥ‬Monsoon .35
‫ ﺍﻳﮉﻣﺮﻝ‬Admiral .36
‫ﺍﻟﮑﻮﺣﻞ‬Alcohol .37
‫ﻋﻨﺒﺮ‬
Amber .38
‫ﺧﻠﻴﻔہ‬
Caliph .39
‫ِﺳﻔﺮ‬
Cipher .40
‫ﻗﮩﻮﻩ‬
Cofee .41
‫ﺟﻦ‬
Genie .42
‫ﺟﻦ‬
Jinn .43
‫ ﻣﻴﮕﺰﻳﻦ‬Magzine .44
‫ﻣﻴﭧ‬
Matress .45
‫ﻣﻴﻨﺎﺭﻩ‬
Minaret .46
‫ﻣﺴﺠﺪ‬
Mosque .47
‫ﺭﻳﮑﭧ‬
Racket or Racquet .48
،‫ ﺳﻔﺮی ﺳﻔﺎﺭی‬iSafar.49
‫ﺳﺎﭨﻦ‬
Satin .50
‫ ﺳﮑﺎﺭﻟﭧ‬Scarlet .51
‫ﺻﻮﻓہ‬
Sofa .52
‫ﭨﻴﺮﻑ‬
Tarrif .53
‫ﺯﻳﺮﻭ‬
Zero .54
‫ﻣﺴﺎﺝ‬
Massage .55
‫ﮐﻴﻤﭗ‬Camp .56
Soda .57‫ﺳﻮڈﺍ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺎﻥ‬،‫ﺟﺎﺭ‬
Jar .58
Hashis.59‫ﺣﺸﻴﺶ‬
‫ﮐﺎک‬
Cork .60
‫◌ٓ ﺍﻟﺠﺒﺮﺍ‬
lgebraA.61
‫ﺣﻮﺍ‬
Eve .62
ٌ
‫ﻓﻮﻗﻴﺖ‬
Focus .63
‫ﻋﺪﻥ‬Eden .64
4.1.3. Words from Semitic roots via Persian
‫ﺩﺭﻭﺍﺯﻩ‬،‫ ﺩﺭ‬Door .65
‫ ◌ٓ ﺁﺭڈﺭ‬Order .66
‫ﺑﺮﺍﺩﺭ‬
Brother .67
‫ ﮐﻤﺮﺑﻨﺪ‬Cmmerbund .68
‫ﺍﻧﺪﺭ‬
Ether .69
‫ﺍﻭﭘﺮ‬
Over .70
‫ﺑَﺪ‬
Bad .71
‫ﺑﻢ‬
Bomb .72
‫ﺑُﻬﻮﺭﺍ‬
Brown .73
‫ﭘﺎﺅں‬
Paw .74
‫ﺗﻤﺒﺎﮐﻮ‬
Tobacco .75
‫ﺟﻬﭩﮑﺎ‬
Jolt .76
‫ﭼﻮﻣﻨﺎ‬،‫ﭼﻢ‬
Chum .77
‫ﺑﻠﺒﻞ‬
Bulbul .78
‫ ﮐﻴﻠﻴﻨﮉﺭ‬Calendar .79
‫ﮐﺎﻓﺘﺎﻥ‬
Caftan .80
‫ﮐﻴﻨﮉی‬
Candy .81
105
Asif et al., 2014 ‫ﮐﺎﺭﻭﺍں‬
Carava .82
‫ ﮐﻴﺶ‬shCa.83
‫ﭼﻴﮏ‬
‫ﺩﻳﻮﺍﻥ‬
Dewan .85
‫ﻣﺎﺩﺭﺯﺍﺩ‬،‫ﻣﺎﺩﺭ‬
Mother .86
‫ﻳﺎﺳﻤﻴﻦ‬Jasmine .87
‫ﮐﻮﭨہ‬
Quota .88
‫ﻻﮐﻬ‬
Lac .89
‫ﻟﻴﻤﻮں‬
Lemon .90
‫ﻣﻴﺠﮏ‬
Magic .91
‫ﻣﻤﯽ‬Mummy .92
‫ﻧﮩﻴﮟ‬
Nay .93
‫ﺍﻭﺭﻧﺞ‬
Orange .94
‫ﭘﻴﺮﺍ‬
Para .95
‫ﭘﺎﺭﺳﯽ‬
Parsee .96
‫ﭘﺮی‬
Fair or Peri .97
‫ﭘﺴﺘہ‬Pistachio .98
‫ﺭﻳﻨﮏ‬
Rank .99
‫ﺳﻴﻨﮉﻝ‬
Sandal .100
‫ﺷﺮﻡ‬hame .101
‫ﺷﺎﻝ‬
Shawl .102
‫ﺗﺎﺭ‬
‫ﭨﺎﺋﻴﮕﺮ‬
tiger.104
‫ﻁﻮﻓﺎﻥ‬
Typhoon .105
‫ﺁﺭﻳہ‬
ryaA .106
‫ﺑﺎﺯﺍﺭ‬
Bazar .107
Check or Cheque .84
tar.103
4.1.4. Words from Indo-European roots via French
‫◌ٓ ﺁﺭٹ‬
‫ﺁﻣﻠﻴﭧ‬
‫ﺗﺒﻮﺭ‬
Art .108
Omelet or Omlette .109
Tabor .110
As it can be seen in the data cited above data that the researcher found thirty one(31) cognate words from IndoEuropean roots via Sanskrit .Thirty three(33) cognates from non-Indo-European languages e.g. Semitic languages
like Arabic, forty three 43 cognate words from Indo-European languages via Iranian Persian and only three cognates
from Indo-European languages via French. Actually, (Deutscher, 2005) Sanskrit and Iranian Persian correlate via
Indo-Iranian languages and then to English via Proto-Indo-European language.
DISCUSSIONS
All the findings regarding the research questions or hypotheses were according to the expectations. The
researcher could found only 110 cognates between Urdu and English languages probing the question which was
under the post positivistic or interpretive paradigm. It was possible through extensive content analysis of different
etymological dictionaries. Although content analysis includes three kind of content analysis; conventional, directed,
and summative yet the researcher used only summative content analysis that involves “counting and comparisons,
usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context” (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005,
p. 1277). However, it is (Government Accountability Office U.S. (GAO), 1996) an authentic research method to
analyze the textual information to infer real meaning. The results did not show only the significant effects of cognate
relationship between Urdu and English languages in second language learning but they also indicated the difference
in the learning frequencies of cognate and non-cognate words. This kind of positive relationship was also presented
by (Ibrahim, 2006) and Nagy, et al (1993). So, the effectiveness of cognate relationship proved in the shape of
difference in the learning frequencies between the cognate and non-cognate words.
The new explorations have been discovered by the content analysis of the tests used in data collection of this
study. Actually, in the translation equivalents there have been also used some English loanwords with cognates.
For Example, “They live in a jungle, so, they are in danger” and “I read fiction but he reads poetry”. In these
106
J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 4(6)101-109, 2014
sentences two words are cognates “jungle” and “fiction”, and two words “danger” and “poetry” are borrowed words
from English that are used frequently in Urdu as loanwords or borrowed words. The usage of borrowed words was
accidently and unconsciously by the researcher. After the extensive analysis of the content of the tests the
researcher found something unexpected which was not plan of the study.
Furthermore, along with the unexpected results from the loanwords relationship, the evidence of more
effectiveness than the cognate relationship is also recorded by Anthony (2006) who argues comparing the cognates
with loanwords that loanwords are more useful than cognates because pedagogically loanwords are currently in use
and are new ones which have not been changed lexically till now while the cognates are older than them and have
crossed a process of changes lexically. Thus, usefulness of cognates depends upon the recognizability which
depends upon the length of the time in which they have faced the changes.
The Effects of cognate relationship.. From the results cited above, now, it is dead sure that cognate relationship
between Urdu and English exists historically and genetically. But the question is how it is useful in second language
learning. What kind of benefits can be achieved from this relationship to the Urdu speakers in learning of English as
second language? The other studies on cognate relationships provide evidence of its usefulness. Caplan-Carbin
(1994) explores the benefits of cognate relationship between English and German. He argues that this relationship is
useful in “increasing ‘guess-power’ in vocabulary”, in sound shifts of German language and its historical
considerations can be beneficial in “basic code-breaking tool for deciphering New High German vocabulary by
English speaking students”. Colorado (2007) understands that this relationship is in primary language is a tool for
understanding a second language. Ibrahim (2006) assumes that it strengthens “the lexical associations between
translation equivalents” of Hebrew and Arabic. Surly the cognate relationship is useful in any language in
vocabulary building, lexical association, sheltering and in other vocabulary tasks. Thus, cognates are considered
(August & Carlo, 2005) very important in activation of vocabulary of person. Anthony (2006) sees the usefulness of
cognates in two ways; linguistically and pedagogically. He says that the definition of cognates in view of
relationship, where relationship is traced in the remote past and that cognates play an important role in the
reconstruction of the languages which is not present in written records, is linguistically important. But for the
pedagogical linguist who is concerned with their teaching in second language, this view of definition is insufficient,
he would not heed on the historical background but he would think about the status of cognates in use. If they are
synonymous morphologically and in syntax with the words of other language then they are useful.
Recommendations
1.
Since the cognate relationship between Urdu and English and their effectiveness have been proved by
finding110 cognates, some new more cognates can be explored, it would be new idea to approach English in
perspective of cognate relationship. Because speakers of English language in Pakistan are unaware of this
relationship, so, opening a new a chapter in the field of English language/literature and teaching of English will
motivate speakers, teachers as well as learners of English. This new chapter should be approached in two ways:
2.
It should be approached pure linguistically in finding the relationship between Urdu and English in their
remote historical and genetic relationship that has played an important role in reconstruction of languages in the
blind and dark pages of history.
3.
The second approach is pedagogical in which the methodologies of teaching cognates should be discussed.
How can they be useful in learning/acquisition of second languages in vocabulary building and comprehension
reading etc? The linguists, trainers, stake holders, language teachers should start debates related to this topic.
4.
Regarding cognate relationship between Urdu and English there should be special introductory courses at
every level of study of English whether it is related to the teaching of English pedagogy or regarding the history and
literature of English and Urdu. Now, English is the destiny of Pakistan. Pakistani society cannot get rid of this
language. Now, English is one of Pakistani languages and there is also existence of Pakistani English like
Singaporean or Indian English. Thus, cognate relationship between English and Urdu should be one of the main
subjects of English studies.
5.
Although some of famous writers like Rahman (2006) and Mansoor (2009) have done a lot of work on
historical, political and social background of languages of Pakistan including English yet, little struggle has been
made on genetic relationship between Urdu and English. May be, this study would be one the pioneer studies about
cognate relationship between Urdu and English. So, there is need of more research on linguistic background of
cognate relationship.
6.
Pedagogical endeavors about teaching of English have dominated the educational world. Thousands of
books and articles have been written in this field. Most of the educational institutions offer courses regarding
English language teaching methodology. Besides this, methodology of cognate teaching has been introduced in
many languages by different educationists. So, the teaching of cognates between Urdu and English should be given
107
Asif et al., 2014 attention pedagogically. The cognates should be taught from lower classes to upper classes. This adventure will not
only accelerate learning of English language but it will also create a sense of ownership in the mind of learners of
English who are scared from English as a foreign language.
7.
The evidences have provided the usefulness of loanwords in Urdu language. English as an international
language is the greatest host of borrowing and loanwords and still this process has not been stopped but it is
continuing. This process makes language comprehensive, rich and universal. So, when new cognates cannot be
created, they have been created and will be created but through the interaction of hundreds of years while
loanwords, on the contrary, can be inserted through cultural borrowing and core borrowing.
8.
With the benefits of making language rich and universal, the loanwords can be an effective tool in second
language learning. It is clear that loanwords are easier to learn than cognates because they have been currently
inserted and are still in currency, so, they are more new than cognates while cognates have been changed lexically
through ages. Thus by the insertion of new English words, teaching and learning of English will be more easy as a
second language. This process will help in shaping Urdu as a rich language as well as an international language.
Urdu will be able to reach the status of richness which has been awaited since the creation of Pakistan and English
will become the second language of Pakistan in real sense.
9.
For enterprise of incretion of loanwords stake holders, teachers, writers, trainers and electronic media
should play an effective role. But before starting this enterprise all these promoters should be briefed regarding be
usefulness of loanwords so that they perform this job ardently.
REFERENCES
Agarwal, A. and Adams, J. (2007). Cognate identification and phylogenetic inference : Search for a Better Pst.
Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jmadams /adamsagarwa l2007.pdf.
Beltran, R. C. (2006). Towards a typological classification of false friends (Spanish-English) RESLL, 19.
Clark, B. A. (2000). First- and Second-Language Learning in Early Childhood. Retrieved from
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/pubs/katzsym/clark-b.html.
Colorado, C. (2007). Using cognates to develop comprehension in English. Retrieved
Colorado, C. (2007) .Using cognates to develop comprehension in English. Retrieved from:
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/14307/.
Ellis, D. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLL perspective. TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 40,
No. 1, March 2006.
Ellis, R. (2008) Second language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. (2009). Second language learning. Language learning. London: Macmillan Publishing Limited.
Ibrahim, R. (2006) Do languages with cognate relationships have advantages in second language learning?
Linguistics Journal, November 2006. Volume 1 Issue 3.Retrieved from: http://www.linguisticsjournal.com/November_2006_ri.php.
Khalique, H. (2007).the Urdu-English relationship and its impact on Pakistan’s social development. The Annual of
Urdu Studies, Annual of Urdu Studies vol. 22 (2007).
Klein, W. (2003) Second language learning. Cape Town: Cambridge University Press.
Kohnert, K. (2004). Cognitive and cognate-based treatments for bilingual aphasia: A case study. ELSEVIER, Brain
and Language 91 (2004) 294–302.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology methods and techniques. New Delhi: New Age International (P)
Limited, Publishers.
Laufer, B. (1991). Similar lexical form in inter language. Tubingen: Gunter NarrVerlag.
Laufer, B. (2003). Lexical plight in second language reading. Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Rationale
for Pedagogy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mansoor, S. (2009). Emerging issues in TEFL challenges for Asia. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
108
J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 4(6)101-109, 2014
Rahman, T. (2006).Language policy, multilingualism and language vitality in Pakistan. In Saxena, A., &Borin, L.
Lesser-Known Languages of South Asia: Status and Policies, Case Studies and Applications of Information
Technology, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Rahman, T. (2010). Language policy and localisation in Pakistan: proposal for a paradigmatic shift. Retrieved from:
http://www.elda.org/en/proj /scalla/SCALLA2004/rahman.pdf.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (4th ed).
London: Pearson.
Ross, K. L. (2010). "Knowing" words in Indo-European languages. Retrieved from:
http://www.friesian.com/cognates.htm.
Schütz, R. (2011). Language learning - language learning. Retrieved from http://www .sk.com.br/sk-krash.html.
Winsor, P. J. T. (2009). Learning experience approach to literacy for children learning English. Winnipeg: Portage
& Main Press.
Zimmerman, C. B. (2003). Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. Second Language
Vocabulary Learning: A Rationale for Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
109